Ownership to Co Ownership

8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership

1/179

LAW ON PROPERTY

Lectures of Atty. Claro F. Certeza

Ateneo College of Law
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGk09.AYRKTgoAACdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBsZDdmM2M5BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkAw--/SIG=1h3mo25kj/EXP=1250251518/**http:/images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&p=ateneo+logo&w=223&h=222&imgurl=www.ateneo.edu/ateneo/www/images/sesqui_logo.jpg&size=27.1kB&name=sesqui+logo+jpg&rcurl=http://www.ateneo.edu/index.php&rurl=http://www.ateneo.edu/index.php&p=ateneo+logo&type=jpeg&no=3&tt=581&oid=694d0c253505ca42&tit=sesqui+logo+jpg&sigr=10vbmm0oh&sigi=11gdo0p8n&sigb=11l2lu95k


2/179

OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL

Articles 427439

Civil Code


3/179

Preliminaries

Ownership Defined

Ownership is the independent right of a person to

the exclusive enjoyment and control of a thing

including its disposition and recovery subject onlyto the restrictions or limitations established by law

and the rights of others. (De Leon)


4/179

Kinds of Ownership Full Ownership

The title and the right to use and enjoy the fruits is inthe name of one person

Beneficial Ownership Title is in the name of another

Ownership recognized by law and capable of beingenforced in court at the instance of the beneficialowner

Example: Trust Agreement

Naked Ownership Possession of bare title to the property

Ownership where the right to use and the fruits iswithheld as it is given to another

Example: Usufruct


5/179

Article 427

Art. 427. Ownership may be exercised over

things or rights. (n)

Things, i.e. those that are capable of

appropriation

Rights, are classified as incorporeal property


6/179

Rights of the Owner

Art. 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and

dispose of a thing, without other limitations

than those established by law.

The owner has also a right of action against the

holder and possessor of the thing in order to

recover it. (348a)


7/179

Rights of Owner

Article 428the owner has the right to:

Recover (Vindicate) (Jus Vindicandi)

Enjoy Dispose (Jus Disponendi)

Other Rights

Right of Accession, the right to everything that is

produced by or attached to the thing owned

(Articles 440475)


8/179

Rights of Owner

Right to Enjoy

Right to possess (Jus Possidendi)

Right to use (Jus Utendi) Right to the fruits (Jus Fruendi)


9/179

Rights of Owner

Right to Possess

Articles 523 to 561 on Possession


10/179

Rights of Owner

Provisions re: Right to Use

Article 429

Owner may exclude others from enjoyment/ disposal

of the property

Owner may use reasonable force to prevent actual or

threatened unlawful invasion of his property

Article 430

Owner may enclose or fence his land


11/179

Rights of Owner

Right to dispose

Right to consume or destroy or abuse

Right to encumber or alienate


12/179

Rights of Owner

Right to Recover/ Vindicate

Recovery of Personal Property

Recovery of Real Property


13/179

Action To Recover Personal Property

Action to Recover Property Under Rule 60 of theRevised Rules of Court

Requirements: Verified Petition stating -

Applicant is the owner of the property Property is wrongfully detained by the defendant

The property is not seized by virtue of a lawfulprocess

The actual market value of the property Posting of a bond equal to double the value of the

property


14/179

Action To Recover Real PropertyAction Where Filed Period Grounds Issue

Forcible Entry

(AccionInterdictal)

Metropolitan/

Municipal TrialCourt

Within One (1)

year fromdispossession

Deprivation of

possession thruFISTS. Possession is

invalid from the

start.

Mere physical

possession(possession de

facto)

Unlawful

Detainer

(Deshaucio)

Metropolitan/

Municipal Trial

Court

Within One (1)

year from date

when

possession

became illegal.

Possession

becomes invalid

after the

termination or

expiration of the

right to possess.

Mere physical

possession

(possession de

facto)

Accion Publiciana Regional Trial

Court

After One (1)

year but within

ten (10) years

from loss of

possession

Deprivation of

possession thru

means other than

FISTS/ Expiration of

right to Possess

Plenary action to

recover

possession

(better right to

possess)

Accion

Reinvidicatoria

Regional Trial

Court

Within ten (10)

years

Possession is

claimed based on

ownership

Recovery of

ownership


15/179

Accion Reinvidicatoria

Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property

must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on

the strength of his title and not on the weakness

of the defendant's claim. (n)


16/179

Other Means to Recover Possession

Writ of Possession

Used in connection with the Land Registration Lawdirecting a sheriff to place a successful registrantunder the Torrens System in possession of theproperty covered by a decree of the court

No separate action is filed by the registrant

Injunction

Art. 539: In forcible entry cases, the plaintiff maypetition the court within 10 days from the filing of thecomplaint to issue a writ of preliminary mandatoryinjunction to restore possession.


17/179

DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION OF

OWNERSHIP

Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of

ownership raises disputable presumption of

ownership. The true owner must resort to

judicial process for the recovery of the property.

2 requirements to raise disputable

presumption of ownership

there must be actual possession of property

the possession must be under claim of ownership


18/179

LIMITATIONS TO RIGHT OFOWNERSHIP


19/179

Limitations on Rights of Owner

Art. 431. The owner of a thing cannot make usethereof in such manner as to injure the rights of athird person.

Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right toprohibit the interference of another with thesame, if the interference is necessary to avert animminent danger and the threatened damage,compared to the damage arising to the owner

from the interference, is much greater. Theowner may demand from the person benefitedindemnity for the damage to him.


20/179

LIMITATIONS TO RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP Power of Eminent Domain

Eminent domain, also often referred to as expropriation and, with less

frequency, as condemnation, is, like police power and taxation, aninherent power of sovereignty. It need not be clothed with anyconstitutional gear to exist; instead, provisions in our Constitution onthe subject are meant more to regulate, rather than to grant, theexercise of the power. Eminent domain is generally so described as"the highest and most exact idea of property remaining in thegovernment" that may be acquired for some public purpose through a

method in the nature of a forced purchase by the State. It is a right totake or reassert dominion over property within the state for public useor to meet a public exigency. It is said to be an essential part ofgovernance even in its most primitive form and thus inseparable fromsovereignty. The only direct constitutional qualification is that "privateproperty shall not be taken for public use without just compensation."

This proscription is intended to provide a safeguard against possibleabuse and so to protect as well the individual against whose propertythe power is sought to be enforced.

(Manosca vs. CA, G.R. No. 106440, January 29, 1996)


21/179

LIMITATIONS TO RIGHTS OF

OWNERSHIP

Codal Provision

Art. 435. No person shall be deprived of his property

except by competent authority and for public use

and always upon payment of just compensation.

Three Requirements

Exercised by competent authority

For public use

Payment of Just Compensation


22/179


OWNERSHIP

Competent Authority

The legislature grants the authority by

appropriating the funds to achieve the purpose

The Executive Branch exercises the authority

granted by the legislature


23/179


OWNERSHIP

Competent AuthorityLGU

The power of eminent domain is lodged in the

legislative branch of government, which may

delegate the exercise thereof to LGUs, otherpublic entities and public utilities.

Section 19 of RA 7160 delegates to LGUs the

power of eminent domain, also lays down the

parameters for its exercise.


24/179


OWNERSHIP Competent AuthorityLGUs, conditions for exercise of

eminent domain powers1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council

authorizing the local chief executive, in behalf of the LGU, toexercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation

proceedings over a particular private property.2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use,purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless.

3. There is payment of just compensation, as required underSection 9 Article III of the Constitution and other pertinent laws.

4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the ownerof the property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was notaccepted.

(Yusay vs. CA, G.R. No. 156684, April 6, 2011)


25/179


OWNERSHIP

Public Use Not limited to use by the public

May be equated with public benefit, public utility or publicadvantage (Guido vs. Rural Progress Administration, 84 Phil

847) Existence of Public Use

Generally the courts decides if a particular use is a privateone

Exception: When Congress has specified the public

purpose for which the authority to expropriate is granted,the courts are without jurisdiction to inquire into thenecessity of such purpose. (City of Manila vs. ChinesCommunity of Manila, 40 Phil 349)


26/179


OWNERSHIP

Public UseSubsequent Non Use

If property is expropriated for public use, the

government must make good its intent to use the

same otherwise, the government may becompelled to return the property to its original

owner. (Ouano vs. Republic, G.R. No. 168770,

February 9, 2011)


27/179


OWNERSHIP

Just Compensation Just compensation is defined as the full and fair

equivalent of the property taken from its owner bythe expropriator. The measure is not the takers gain,

but the owners loss. The word "just" is used tointensify the meaning of the word "compensation"and to convey thereby the idea that the equivalent tobe rendered for the property to be taken shall be real,substantial, full, and ample. Indeed, the "just"-ness of

the compensation can only be attained by usingreliable and actual data as bases in fixing the value ofthe condemned property. (NPC vs. Bernal, G.R. No.180979, December 15, 2010)


28/179


OWNERSHIP

Just CompensationWho Determines

The trial court has exclusive jurisdiction to

determine just compensation.

Thus a law which provides that the only basis for

determining just compensation in eminent

domain cases should be the market value as

declared by the owner or as determined by the

assessor, whichever is lower is void. (EPZA vs.

Dulay, 149 SCRA 305)


29/179

LIMIATATIONS TO RIGHTS OF

OWNERSHIP

Two Stages in Expropriation Cases

First Stage: Determination of the authority of theplaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain andthe propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts

of the case. This ends with an Order - - Dismissing the case

Of Condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawfulright to take the property for public use upon payment of

just compensation. Second Stage: Determination by the Court of the just

compensation. (NPC vs. Jocson, 206 SCRA 536)


30/179

Limitations on Rights of Owners

Art. 436. When any property is condemned or

seized by competent authority in the interest

of health, safety or security, the owner thereof

shall not be entitled to compensation, unlesshe can show that such condemnation or

seizure is unjustified.


31/179


Police Power

The concept of police power is well-established in thisjurisdiction. It has been defined as the "state authorityto enact legislation that may interfere with personal

liberty or property in order to promote the generalwelfare." As defined, it consists of (1) an impositionof restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order tofoster the common good. It is not capable of an exact

definition but has been, purposely, veiled in generalterms to underscore its all-comprehensive embrace.(Phil. Association of Service Exporters vs. Drilon, G.R.No. 81958 June 30, 1988)


32/179


Police Power

Persons affected by the exercise of police power

are not entitled to compensation unlike those

whose lands are expropriated.


33/179

Surface Rights

Art. 437. The owner of a parcel of land is the

owner of its surface and of everything under

it, and he can construct thereon any works or

make any plantations and excavations whichhe may deem proper, without detriment to

servitudes and subject to special laws and

ordinances. He cannot complain of thereasonable requirements of aerial navigation.


34/179

Hidden Treasure

Art. 438. Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building,or other property on which it is found.

Nevertheless, when the discovery is made on the property of another,or of the State or any of its subdivisions, and by chance, one-half

thereof shall be allowed to the finder. If the finder is a trespasser, heshall not be entitled to any share of the treasure.

If the things found be of interest to science of the arts, the State mayacquire them at their just price, which shall be divided in conformitywith the rule stated. (351a)

Art. 439. By treasure is understood, for legal purposes, any hidden andunknown deposit of money, jewelry, or other precious objects, thelawful ownership of which does not appear.


35/179

Hidden Treasure

Two Requisites

they consist of money, jewels and other precious

objects;

they are hidden and unknown such that theirfinding is a real discovery.


36/179

Hidden Treasure

Precious Objects

Law refers only to movables

Owner is Unknown

Money purposely hidden by the owner is not

hidden treasure;

Finding is by chance

There must be no purpose or intent to look for

treasure


37/179

ACCESSION


38/179

Art. 440ownership

of the thing gives

owner right to theirproduce and to those

incorporated or

attached thereto.

Accession Discreta

extension of therights of ownership

to the products of

the thing. (Art. 441)

Accession Continua

acquisition of

ownership over a thing

incorporated to that

which belongs to the

owner.


39/179

ACCESSIOND

ISCRETA

3 Kinds of Accession

Discreta Under Art. 442

Natural Fruits

spontaneous productsof the soil and young

and other products of

animals.

Industrial Fruitsthose produced by

lands of any kind thru

cultivation or labor.

Civil Fruitsrent ofland or building or

amount of perpetual

life annuities.

Art. 444

Only such

are manifest

or born are

considered

as natural or

industrial

fruits.

Art. 443He

who receives

fruits has the

obligation to paythe expenses

made by 3rd

persons in their

production,

gathering and

preservation.


40/179

ACCESSIONC

ONTINUA ACCESSION WITH

RESPECT TO IMMOVABLE

PROPERTY (Arts. 445-465)

ACCESSION WITH

RESPECT TO MOVABLE

PROPERTY (Arts. 466-475)

Natural

1. Alluvion

2. Force of river

3. Change of river bed4. Formation of islands

Industrial

1. Building, planting or

sowing

1. Conjunction or

adjunction

2. Specification

3. Commixtion

Adjunction may

take place by:

Inclusion

Soldering

Weaving

Painting

i bl


41/179

Accession on Immovable Property

Whatever is B-S-P on land belongs to the owner OF

THE LAND.

Art. 445. Whatever is built, planted or sown onthe land of another and the improvements or

repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of theland, subject to the provisions of the followingarticles.

Disputable presumption is that B-S-P on land was

made by the owner. Art. 446. All works, sowing, and planting are

presumed made by the owner and at his expense,unless the contrary is proved. (359)


42/179

Article 447

Art. 447. The owner of the land who makes

thereon, personally or through another,plantings, constructions or works with thematerials of another, shall pay their value; and, ifhe acted in bad faith, he shall also be obliged tothe reparation of damages. The owner of thematerials shall have the right to remove themonly in case he can do so without injury to thework constructed, or without the plantings,constructions or works being destroyed.

However, if the landowner acted in bad faith, theowner of the materials may remove them in anyevent, with a right to be indemnified fordamages.


43/179

Art. 447 - L.O. makes planting, construction or

works using materials of another.Owner of Material in Good Faith Owner of Material in Bad Faith

Landowner in Good

Faith

Landowner must pay value of

materials.

Owner of material can

remove provided no injury iscaused to the planting or

works.

Landowner must pay value

of materials.

Owner of material can

remove provided no injury iscaused to the planting or

works. (Paras , De Leon,

opines no right of removal)

Owner of materials liable to

pay damages.

Landowner in Bad

Faith

Landowner must pay valueof

materials plus damages.

Owner of materials can

remove even if injury will

result to the planting or works

plus damages.

As if both are in good faith.


44/179

Builds

UPON LAND OF

ANOTHER

ARTICLES 448 - 454


45/179

Article 448 Art. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has

been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall havethe right to appropriate as his own the works, sowingor planting, after payment of the indemnity providedfor in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one whobuilt or planted to pay the price of the land, and the

one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builderor planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its valueis considerably morethan that of the building or trees.In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the ownerof the land does not choose to appropriate the building

or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agreeupon the terms of the lease and in case ofdisagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.(361a)


46/179

When To Apply Article 448

A person builds on land belonging to another.

The builder, planter, or sower believes that he

is the owner of the landHe is in GOOD

FAITH.


47/179

Good Faith/ Bad Faith

Good Faithhonest belief of the builder,

planter or sower that the land on which he is

building, planting, or sowing is his and is

ignorant of any defect or title.

Bad Faiththe builder, planter, or sower, is

aware that he is not the owner of the land or

that his title is defective.


48/179

Art. 448 - Good Faith

This Court has ruled that this provision covers onlycases in which the builders, sowers or plantersbelieve themselves to be owners of the land or, atleast, to have a claim of title thereto. It does notapply when the interest is merely that of a holder,such as a mere tenant, agent or usufructuary.Fromthese pronouncements, good faith is identified bythe belief that the land is owned; or that -- by sometitle -- one has the right to build, plant, or sowthereon.


49/179

Options of Landowner

If the builder, planter, sower is in Good Faith To appropriate the improvement

Must pay NECESSARY EXPENSES expenses made for the preservation of the thing or those which

seek to prevent the waste, deterioration or loss of the thing

(Manresa) Example: expenses for cultivation, production and upkeep;

ordinary repairs required by natural wear and tear;

Must pay USEFUL EXPENSES Those which add value to the thing or augment its income.

Example: levelling/ clearing of the ground, introduction ofimprovements to the house, construction of fishpond or irrigationsystem.

Must pay ORNAMENTAL/ LUXURIOUS EXPENSES


50/179

Options of Landowner

If the builder, planter, sower is in Good Faith

Oblige builder or planter to pay the price of the

land or the one who sowed the proper rent

Not available if the price of the land is considerablymore than the building or trees. In this case he must

pay the proper rent.

The parties shall agree on the terms of the lease and if

they fail to agree, the courts shall fix the terms.


51/179

Who Exercises Option

The Landowner

Why is Option given to the landowner?

He is the owner of the principal and therefore

applying the principles of accession, he is the one

who benefits from it.


52/179

When Builder Planter Sower in BAD FAITH Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the

land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without

right to indemnity. (362) Art. 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been

built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand thedemolition of the work, or that the planting or sowing beremoved, in order to replace things in their former conditionat the expenseof the person who built, planted or sowed; orhe may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of theland, and the sower the proper rent. (363a)

Art. 451. In the cases of the two preceding articles, thelandowner is entitled to damages from the builder, planteror sower. (n)

Art. 452. The builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitledto reimbursement for the necessary expenses ofpreservation of the land. (n)


53/179

EffectBPS in Bad Faith As to cost of what was Built, Planted, Sowed

No reimbursement is due to builder, planter, sower(Art. 449)

Remedies of the owner of land

Demand demolition of the work

Removal of what was planted or sowed

Require the builder or planter to buy the land

Require sower to pay the proper rent (Art. 450)

Builder, Planter, Sowerliable for damages to theowner of the land (Art. 451)

Builder, Planter, Sowerentitled to payment forexpenses to PRESERVE the land.

SUMMARY OF RULESA person builds, plants, or sows upon


54/179

Builder in Good Faith Builder in Bad Faith

Landowner in

Good Faith

L.O. can appropriate the

works but must pay necessary

& useful expense and

ornamental expense. (Art.

448)

L.O. can oblige the builder or

planter to pay for the land

(unless the value of the land

is considerably more) or the

sower to pay rent.

B-P-S loses what was built,

planted or sown without right

to any indemnity. (Art. 449)

Landowner may demand

demolition of work or

removal of what was planted

or sowed. (Art. 450)

May compel the B-P-S to pay

for the price of the land or

compel sower to pay the

proper rent. (Art. 450)

The B-P-S in bad faith is

entitled to reimbursementfor the preservation of the

land. (Art. 452)

L.O. is entitled to damages.

Landowner in

Bad Faith

Apply Art. 447 (Art. 454) Apply the rule as if both

parties are in good faith.

p , p , p

land belonging to another


55/179

Article 454

Landowner in Bad Faith/ B-P-S in Good Faith

Apply 447 (As if Landowner is B-P-S in Bad Faith

on his own land with materials belonging to

another) Thus, the owner of the materials who is the B-P-S

is entitled to:

Demand the value of his materials

Demand the return of his materials

Plus damages in both cases


56/179

Assigned Cases1. Pacific farms, Inc., vs. Simplicio G. Esguerra, et al.,

G.R. No. L-21783 November 29, 19692. Macasaet vs. Macasaet

G.R. Nos. 154391-92 September 30, 2004

3. Technogas vs. CA, 268 SCRA 5

4. Del Campo vs. Abesia, 160 SCRA 3795. Sarmiento vs. Agana, 129 SCRA 122

6. Javier vs. Javier, 7 Phil 261

7. PNB vs. De Jesus, 411 SCRA 557

8. Rosales vs. Castelltort, 472 SCRA 1449. Depra vs. Dumlao, 136 SCRA 475

10. Nuguid vs. Court of Appeals, 452 SCRA 243

11. Manotok Realty vs. Tecson, 164 SCRA 587


57/179

Pacific Farms v. Garcia

Carried Lumber sold construction materials to

Insular Farms, Inc., for construction of 6

buildings.

Insular Farms, Inc. failed to pay and Carried

Lumber sued the former and obtained

judgment.

Carried Lumber levied upon the six (6)buildings of Insular Farms.


58/179


Pacific Farms filed a third-party claim asserting

that it purchased the 6 buildings from Insular

Farms.

Carried posted a bond so the sheriff

proceeded with auction sale.

Pacific Farms filed action against Carried and

the Sheriff to annul the levy of the sixbuildings.


59/179


Court Ruling

We should apply Art. 447 by analogy

Levy of 6 buildings is proper

Pacific is given time to redeem the 6 buildings by

paying the price of the materials


60/179


Why Art. 447 was applied by analogy the SC made a finding that Insular Farms and Pacific

Farms are owned by one and the same beneficialowners.

Pacific Farms in BAD FAITH as it knows of the claim ofCarried Lumber against its predecessor Insular Farms

Why applied by analogy ordinarily Art. 447 applies only when a landowner

builds on his land using the materials of another

in this case Insular Farms built using materials ofanother but Art. 447 was applied with respect to therights of the buyer (Pacific Farms)


61/179

Macasaet v. Macasaet General Rule.Art. 448 applies to builders,

sowers or planters who believe themselves to

be owners of the land or, at least, to have a

claim of title thereto. It does not apply when

the interest is merely that of a holder, such as

a mere tenant, agent or usufructuary. From

these pronouncements, good faith is

identified by the belief that the land is owned;or that -- by some title -- one has the right to

build, plant, or sow thereon.


62/179

Macasaet v. Macasaet Exceptions: However, in some special cases, this Court

has used Article 448 by recognizing good faith beyondthis limited definition. Thus, in Del Campo v. Abesia,this provision was applied to one whose house --despite having been built at the time he was still co-

owner -- overlapped with the land of another. Thisarticle was also applied to cases wherein a builder hadconstructed improvements with the consent of theowner. The Court ruled that the law deemed the

builder to be in good faith. In Sarmiento v. Agana, thebuilders were found to be in good faith despite theirreliance on the consent of another, whom they hadmistakenly believed to be the owner of the land.


63/179

Macasaet v. Macasaet

Based on the aforecited special cases, Article 448applies to the present factual milieu. Theestablished facts of this case show thatrespondents fully consented to the

improvements introduced by petitioners. In fact,because the children occupied the lots upon theirinvitation, the parents certainly knew andapproved of the construction of theimprovements introduced thereon. Thus,petitioners may be deemed to have been in goodfaith when they built the structures on those lots.


64/179

Macasaet v. Macasaet

Observations

the stay of the children was NOT by mere

tolerance but by contract

the term of the stay is for so long as the partiesmutually benefitted until there is a change in

conditionunresolved conflict that terminates

the agreement


65/179

Technogas vs. CA

The parties in this case are owners of adjoining lots inParaaque, Metro Manila. It was discovered in asurvey, that a portion of a building of petitioner(technogas), which was presumably constructed by itspredecessor-in-interest, encroached on a portion ofthe lot owned by private respondent (Eduardo Uy).What are the rights and obligations of the parties? IsTechnogas considered a builder in bad faith because, asheld by respondent Court, he is "presumed to knowthe metes and bounds of his property as described inhis certificate of title"? Does Technogas succeed intothe good faith or bad faith of his predecessor-in-interest which presumably constructed the building?


66/179

Technogas v. CA

Can the successor-in-interest of the BPS benefitfrom Art. 448?

Yes, provided the successor did not know of theencroachment.

Is Technogas in bad faith?

No, good faith is presumed under Art. 527

When Technogas purchased the land, the buildings

which encroached were already existing. Technogashad no way of knowing about the encroachment. Infact, the owner of the land encroached also becameaware only after he had his land surveyed.


67/179

Technogas v. CA

Since Technogas became aware of the

encroachment subsequent to its purchase, will

this not preclude resorting to Art. 448?

No, a reading of Art. 448 will show that thelandowners exercise of the option can only take

place AFTER the builder shall have come to know

of the intrusionin short, when both parties

became aware of it.


68/179

Del Campo vs. Abesia

Facts: A co-owner built on land owned in common.

The court appointed commissioner prepared a sketchplan and it was discovered that the house of one co-

owner encroached on the part belonging to the otherco-owner.

The court ruled that Art. 448 cannot be applied sincea co-owner is not a third party. The court applied the

rules on co-ownership. The court ordered the builder who encroached to

remove the encroachment.


69/179

Del Campo vs. Abesia

Held:

The SC agreed with the ruling of the lower court.

However, when the co-ownership is terminated

by the partition and there is encroachment of 5sq. meters obviously made in good faith, Art. 448

may be applied by analogy citing Manresa and

Amandi.


70/179

Sarmiento vs. Agana

Facts: Mother allowed her daughter and latters husband to

build their house on a parcel of land.

Believing that the mother owns the land, couple built

their house thereon.

It turns out the mother is not the owner. It is titled toanother who sold the same to Sarmiento.

Sarmiento filed ejectment case against the couple.

Lower court ruled that couple is in good faith. Itordered the couple to vacate the land after Sarmientopays them the value of the house.


71/179

Sarmiento vs. Agana

Facts: On appeal to RTC, decision modified:

Sarmiento was given the ff. options exercisable within 60 days Reimburse the couple the value of the house, or

Require the couple to pay the value of the land

Sarmiento refused to exercise either option RTC required couple to deposit the sum equal to the value of land

Hence, the appeal.

Held: Lower court did not err in requiring landowner to exercise

the 2 options under Art. 448 Note: Since the landowner refused to exercise any of the 2

options, is it proper for the court to decide for them?


72/179

Javier v. Javier

The son built on land belonging to the father

and with the latters consent.

Father sold land to another.

The son eventually purchased the lot.

Son considered a builder in good faith and

court applied Art. 448.


73/179

PNB vs. De Jesus

De Jesus sued PNB for recovery of ownership andpossession.

De Jesus claimed he purchased the propertycovered by TCT 17197 and after survey, north

part is being encroached upon by building ownedby PNB.

PNB claimed it purchased adjoining propertyfrom Ignacio. At time of sale, Ignacio

acknowledged encroachment and in fact offeredthe portion for sale to PNB since he also ownedthe lot (now owned by De Jesus)


74/179

PNB v. De Jesus

Is PNB a builder in good faith?

Held:

PNB was made aware that part of the building

encroached upon the land of De JesusPNB is inbad faith.

Article 448 does not apply if the builder is also the

owner of the land which he subsequently loses bysale or other mode of transfer


75/179

Rosales v. Castelltort

Castelltort purchased Lot 16 from Lina.

The engineer of Lina pointed to Lot 17 by

mistke and Catelltort built a house on Lot 17

instead of Lot 16.

Court concluded that Castelltort is in good

faith and applied Art. 448.


76/179


77/179

Depra v. Dumlao

2. After said amounts shall have been determined by competentevidence, the Regional, Trial Court shall render judgment, as follows:

a) The trial Court shall grant DEPRA a period of fifteen (15) days withinwhich to exercise his option under the law (Article 448, Civil Code),whether to appropriate the kitchen as his own by paying to DUMLAO

either the amount of tile expenses spent by DUMLAO f or the building ofthe kitchen, or the increase in value ("plus value") which the said area of34 square meters may have acquired by reason thereof, or to obligeDUMLAO to pay the price of said area. The amounts to be respectivelypaid by DUMLAO and DEPRA, in accordance with the option thusexercised by written notice of the other party and to the Court, shall be

paid by the obligor within fifteen (15) days from such notice of the optionby tendering the amount to the Court in favor of the party entitled toreceive it;

Depra v Dumlao


78/179

Depra v. Dumlao b) The trial Court shall further order that if DEPRA exercises the option to oblige

DUMLAO to pay the price of the land but the latter rejects such purchase because,as found by the trial Court, the value of the land is considerably more than that of

the kitchen, DUMLAO shall give written notice of such rejection to DEPRA and tothe Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of DEPRA's option to sell the land. Inthat event, the parties shall be given a period of fifteen (15) days from such noticeof rejection within which to agree upon the terms of the lease, and give the Courtformal written notice of such agreement and its provisos. If no agreement isreached by the parties, the trial Court, within fifteen (15) days from and after thetermination of the said period fixed for negotiation, shall then fix the terms of thelease, provided that the monthly rental to be fixed by the Court shall not be lessthan Ten Pesos (P10.00) per month, payable within the first five (5) days of eachcalendar month. The period for the forced lease shall not be more than two (2)years, counted from the finality of the judgment, considering the long period oftime since 1952 that DUMLAO has occupied the subject area. The rental thus fixedshall be increased by ten percent (10%) for the second year of the forced lease.DUMLAO shall not make any further constructions or improvements on thekitchen. Upon expiration of the two-year period, or upon default by DUMLAO in

the payment of rentals for two (2) consecutive months, DEPRA shall be entitled toterminate the forced lease, to recover his land, and to have the kitchen removedby DUMLAO or at the latter's expense. The rentals herein provided shall betendered by DUMLAO to the Court for payment to DEPRA, and such tender shallconstitute evidence of whether or not compliance was made within the periodfixed by the Court.

Depra v Dumlao


79/179

Depra v. Dumlaoc) In any event, DUMLAO shall pay DEPRA an amount

computed at Ten Pesos (P10.00) per month as reasonablecompensation for the occupancy of DEPRA's land for theperiod counted from 1952, the year DUMLAO occupiedthe subject area, up to the commencement date of theforced lease referred to in the preceding paragraph;

d) The periods to be fixed by the trial Court in itsPrecision shall be inextendible, and upon failure of theparty obliged to tender to the trial Court the amount dueto the obligee, the party entitled to such payment shall

be entitled to an order of execution for the enforcementof payment of the amount due and for compliance withsuch other acts as may be required by the prestation duethe obligee.

Accession


80/179

Accession General Rule: Accessory follows the principal. (Art. 445)

Exception: Art. 120. The ownership of improvements,whether for utility or adornment, made on the separateproperty of the spouses at the expense of the partnershipor through the acts or efforts of either or both spousesshall pertain to the conjugal partnership, or to the originalowner-spouse, subject to the following rules:

When the cost of the improvement made by the conjugal partnershipand any resulting increase in value are more than the value of theproperty at the time of the improvement, the entire property of oneof the spouses shall belong to the conjugal partnership, subject toreimbursement of the value of the property of the owner-spouse atthe time of the improvement; otherwise, said property shall beretained in ownership by the owner-spouse, likewise subject to

reimbursement of the cost of the improvement. In either case, the ownership of the entire property shall be vested

upon the reimbursement, which shall be made at the time of theliquidation of the conjugal partnership. (158a)

G d i h ll i C


81/179

Good FaithIllustrative Case

Technogas vs. CA, 268 SCRA 5

One cannot be presumed to know the metes and

bounds of his property simply based on the

technical description on his title unless he is wellversed in the science of surveying.

Hence, one who holds title and builds beyond his

property line cannot be presumed to be in bad

faith.

Application of Art. 448 Beyond Limited


82/179


Definition Good Faith

Art. 448 applied to the following cases:

Where children, upon invitation of their parents,

built a house on a lot owned by their parents.

(Macasaet case) Where a co-owner builds a house on land owned

in common which, after partition, is found to

overlapped with the land partitioned to another.

(Del Campo vs. Abesia, 160 SCRA 379)



83/179


Definition Good Faith

Art. 448 applied to the following cases:

Where a party obtains permission to build on

land from one whom they mistakenly believed to

be the owner thereof. (Sarmiento vs. Agana, 129SCRA 122)

Where a son builds on a lot belonging to his father

with the latters consent. (Javier vs. Javier, 7 Phil

261)

Transferability of Benefits Under Art.


84/179

Transferability of Benefits Under Art.

448

Technogas case

A buyer of a property from a builder in good

faith enjoys the same if it can be shown that

at the time of acquisition, he is not aware ofany flaw in the property he is acquiring.

Grant To Of Option to Landowner is


85/179

Grant To Of Option to andowner is

Preclusive

The grant of the option is preclusive (PNB

vs. De Jesus, 411 SCRA 557)the landowner

cannot refuse to exercise either option and

compel instead the owner of the building toremove it from the land. (Technogas vs. CA, 28

SCRA 5)

Wh I G t P l i ?


86/179

Why Is Grant Preclusive? Where the builder, planter or sower has acted in good

faith, a conflict of rights arises between the owners,and it becomes necessary to protect the owner of theimprovements without causing injustice to the ownerof the land. In view of the impracticability of creating astate of forced co-ownership, the law has provided a

just solution by giving the owner of the land the optionto acquire the improvements after payment of theproper indemnity, or to oblige the builder or planter topay for the land and the sower the proper rent. Hecannot refuse to exercise either option. It is the owner

of the land who is authorized to exercise the option,because his right is older, and because, by the principleof accession, he is entitled to the ownership of theaccessory thing. (Rosales vs. Castelltort, 472 SCRA 144)

Can Landowner Demand Removal/


87/179

/

Demolition If BPS in Good Faith?

When the landowner opts to sell the land andpayment is refused without justifiable cause.

Justifiable cause means the value of the property

is considerably more than the building.

When the landowner opts to lease the land to

the builder but the latter defaults in the

payment of 2 consecutive monthly rent orwhen the lease expires. (Technogas case)

H Will th T i l C t A l A t 448


88/179

How Will the Trial Court Apply Art. 448

First, determine the values of the properties Determine the fair price of the property encroached

upon;

Determine the increase in value (plus value) which

the encroached property may have enjoyed by reasonof the existence of the portion of the building on thearea;

Determine the encroaching value of the building;

Determine whether the value of the said area of landis considerably more than the fair market value of theportion of the building thereon.



89/179


After determining the respective values, the courtshall render judgment, as follows Give the landowner 15 days within which to exercise

the option to appropriate the encroaching portion of

the building upon payment of its fair market value orto oblige the builder after paying the price of the areaencroached.

If landowner chooses to appropriatepay the valueof the building or the plus value.

If the landowner opts to sell the portion of landencroached upon, builder must pay the fair value ofthe land encroached upon.



90/179


If purchase of land is rejected because the valueof the land is considerably more than the value ofthe building advise the landowner and the court w/in 15 days

from notice of landowners exercise of the option. give the parties 15 days from notice of rejection to

agree on the terms of the lease.

If no agreement, the court fixes the terms of the leasewithin 15 days from expiry of the period for

negotiation. The term of the lease as fixed by the court should not

exceed 2 years. (Depra vs. Dumlao, 136 SCRA 475)

Ri ht f R t ti


91/179

Right of Retention Builder Planter or Sower in Good Faith may Retain

Possession of the Land If Landowner chooses to appropriate

Indemnity is not yet paid in full

Purpose of right of retentionto ensure full andprompt reimbursement.

During the period of retention, builder cannot beforced to pay rent. (Nuguid vs. Court of Appeals, 452SCRA 243)

Destruction of the improvement due to fortuitous

events and without fault of the landowner negates theright to be paid for the expenses and the right toretain. (Manotok Realty vs. Tecson, 164 SCRA 587)

Builder/Planter/Sower in Bad Faith


92/179

Builder/Planter/Sower in Bad Faith

General Rule: What is built, planted, or sown islost without right of indemnity. (Art. 449)

Exception: If the improvement has already beenharvested, there is no accession and Art. 449 willnot apply.

Consequently, if fruits have been gathered andthe sower/ planter is ordered to give the fruits to

the landownerArt. 443 applies and thesower/planter must be paid for the expensescultivation, harvesting, and preservation.

When Both BPS Acted in Good Faith


93/179

Landowner in Bad Faith

Article 454Apply provisions of Article 447

Landowner considered having made the building,

planting or sowing thru the BPS using the

materials of another. Consequently, the landowner should pay the

value of the materials plus damages.

The owner can remove the materials, even if

damage is caused, and still demand payment of

damages.

BPS Builds/Plants/Sows on Land of Another Using


94/179

/ / g

Materials of a Third Person Not in Bad Faith

Art. 455landowner makes use of the materials, hepays if the BPS has no property with which to pay. the landowner makes use of the materials only if he

appropriates the construction AND NOT if he compelsbuilder to purchase the land or to demolish the

construction. If landowner demolishes what was built/ planted/

sown Art. 455 DOES NOT apply.

If BPS paid the owner of the materials the BPS, the BPS

may demand from landowner the value of thematerials and labor. This assumes that the landownerchooses to appropriate the materials.

BPS Builds/Plants/Sows on Land of Another Using


95/179

/ / g

Materials of a Third Person Not in Bad Faith

What if the owner of the materials is in badfaith?

He loses the right to be indemnified

He is liable for damages

Good Faith & Negligence


96/179

Good Faith & Negligence

A party may be in good faith even if he wasnegligent.

the presence of negligence does not necessarily

produce bad faith. however, negligence gives rise to the obligation to

pay damages.

Cases


97/179

Cases

Pacific farms, Inc., vs. Simplicio G. Esguerra,et al., G.R. No. L-21783 November 29, 1969

Pacific Farms Case


98/179

Pacific Farms Case

Can we apply Article 447 in a case where aparty builds on land belonging to a third party

using the materials of another?

Yes, by analogy, the building is considered theprincipal and the building is the accessory.

Pacific Farms Case


99/179

Pacific Farms Case

Applying Art. 447 if a building constructedusing the materials of another is sold to a

third party, who should pay for the materials?

If the buyer is in bad faith, he should pay forthe materials. Well-established in

jurisprudence is the rule that compensation

should be borne by the person who has beenbenefited by the accession.


100/179

ACCESSION NATURAL

Accretion


101/179

Accretion

Accretion is the process whereby thesoil is deposited on land due to the

current of the river. Alluvium is the soil actually

deposited on the land by the process

of accretion.

Requisites for Accretion


102/179

Requisites for Accretion

Accretion benefits a riparian owner when thefollowing requisites are present:

(1) that the deposit be gradual and imperceptible;

(2) that it resulted from the effects of the current of thewater; and

(3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent

to the bank of a river (Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R.

No. L-61647, October 12, 1984, 132 SCRA 514, cited inAgustin v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. Nos.

66075-76, July 5, 1990, 187 SCRA 218).

Definitions


103/179

Definitions River

A natural collection of waters, arising from springs

or fountains, which flow in a bed or canal of

considerable width and length, towards the sea.

River" consists of water, a bed and banks, theseseveral parts constituting the river, the whole

river. It is a compound idea; it cannot exist

without all its parts. Evaporate the water, and you

have a dry hollow. If you could sink the bed,instead of a river, you would have a fathomless

gulf. Remove the banks, and you have a boundless

flood. (Hilario vs. City of Manila, 19 SCRA 931)

Definition


104/179

Definition

Banks of River

Lateral strips or zones of its bed which are

washed by the stream only during such high

floods as do not cause inundations or to thepoint reached by river at hightide. (Hilario vs.

City of Manila, 19 SCRA 931)


105/179

Accretion on Riverbanks


106/179

Accretion on Riverbanks

They form part of the land of the riparian owner. Provided all the requisites are present

Provided no human intervention is made to effect orenhance accretion

The addition formed by the alluvion belongsautomatically to the riparian owner as a naturalincident to ownership.

The purchaser of land sold on installment enjoys theaccretion even if there is no full payment yet. (Asst.

Secretary vs. CA, 169 SCRA 27) Reason: The ownerreserves title thereto only for its protection and thebeneficial and equitable title is in the purchaser.

Registration of Alluvial Deposit


107/179

Registration of Alluvial Deposit

The accretion is automatically owned by theriparian owner.

However, the alluvial property MUST be

registered. If not registered, it is subject toacquisition thru prescription by third parties.

(Heirs of Emiliano Navarro vs. IAC, 268 SCRA

86)

Ponds Lagoons Lake & Creek


108/179

Ponds, Lagoons, Lake & Creek Pondbody of stagnant water without an outlet,

larger than a puddle and smaller than a lake, or a likebody of water with a small outlet.

Lagoona small lake, ordinarily of fresh water, and notvery deep, fed by floods, the hollow bed of which isbounded by elevations of land.

Lake - A body of water formed in depressions of theearth. Ordinarily fresh water, coming from rivers,brooks, or springs, and connected with the sea bythem. (Govt vs. Colegio de San Jose, G.R. No. L-30829,August 28, 1929)

Creek- recess or arm extending from a river andparticipating in the ebb and flow of the sea. (Mercadovs. Municipal President of Macabebe,59 Phil. 592[1934])

Rule on Lagoons/Ponds


109/179

Rule on Lagoons/Ponds

Article 458

owners of land adjoining ponds or

lagoons:

Do not acquire land left dry by the

natural decrease of waters

Do not lose what is inundated because offloods

Rule on Lakes


110/179

Rule on Lakes ART 84. Accretions deposited gradually upon

lands contiguous to creeks, streams, rivers, andlakes, by accessions or sediments from thewaters thereof, belong to the owners of suchlands. . (Govt vs. Colegio de San Jose, G.R. No.

L-30829, August 28, 1929) Laguna de Bay is a lake. Hence the riparian

owner also owns the accretion.

Manila Bay is a sea for purposes of accretion.

Hence accretion from Manila Bay constitutesforeshore lands and is owned by thegovernment. (Heirs of Emiliano Navarro)

Avulsion


111/179

Definition:

Transfer of a known portion of land from onetenement to another by force of the current.

Distinguished from accretion

In accretion the deposit of soil is gradual, in avulsion

it is sudden or abrupt; In accretion, the owner of the land to which alluvion

attached becomes the owner, in avulsion, the ownerof the property from which a portion is detachedretains ownership.

In accretion, the owner of the soil (alluivium) is notknown, while in avulsion the owner of the land whichis detached is known.

Two-Year Period


112/179

Reason: It is impractical to insist on retention of ownership

because the owner of the segregated property maynot want to be burdened anymore due to the distanceof the segregated portion from his property;

the owner of the property to which it is attached willbe unduly burdened if the segregated property is nottimely removed;

the retention of ownership of the known portion mayrequire the establishment of an easement over the

tenement to which it is attachedthereby developingill-will;

After some time, the segregated portion may blendwith the property to which it is attached.

Uprooted Trees


113/179

Uprooted Trees

Art. 460 Owner of uprooted trees may reclaim within 6

months, but must pay expenses for gathering and

placing them in a safe place (preservation). Owner of the land acquires ownership after 6

months.

Abandonment of River Bed


114/179

Abandonment of River Bed

Article 461 the owner of the land invaded by the new course

of the river becomes owner of the abandoned

bed. The right is automatically acquired by the owner

of the invaded land.

Is Art. 461 applicable to a dried up river?

Art. 461 does not apply where the riverbed dries

up.

Lands Isolated By Branching of Rivers


115/179

Lands Isolated By Branching of Rivers

Art. 463 the owner does not lose his ownership simply

because of an inundation which has converted his

land into an island.

Formation of Islands


116/179

Formation of Islands

Arts. 464 & 465 Islands formed on the seas, lakes, navigable or

floatable rivers belongs to the state.

Islands formed in non-navigable and non-floatable rivers belong to the owners of the

margins or banks nearest to them. If the island is

in the middle of the river, it shall be divided

longitudinally in half.

Cases


117/179

1. Government of the Phil Islands vs. Cabangis, 53

Phil 1122. Hilario v. City of Manila, GR No. L-19570 April

27, 1967

3. Republic v. CA, G.R. No. L-61647. October 12,1984.

4. Binalay vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 92161 March 18,1991

5. Baes vs. CA, G.R. No. 108065, July 6, 19936. Vda. De Nazareno v. CA, G.R. No. 98045. June

26, 1996.

Cases


118/179

Cases7. De Buyser v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-

22763. March 18, 1983.

8. Ignacio v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-12958.May 30, 1960.

9. Government v. Colegio de San Jose, G.R. No.30829. August 28, 1929.

10. Maneclang v. IAC, G.R. No. L-66575. September30, 1986.

11. Bantao vs. Dabay, G.R. No. 12264,September 23, 1918

12. Jaguling vs. CA, G.R. No. 94283, March 4, 1991


119/179

Accession With Respect to

Movable PorpertiesArticles 466-475

Definitions


120/179

Definitions Adjunction (conjunction)

the union of two movable things belonging to twodifferent owners in such a way that they form a singleobject but each of the component things preservetheir value.

Mixture two or more things belonging to different owners are

mixed with the respective identities of the componentparts destroyed or lost.

Specification work is done on the material of another, such

material, in the consequence of the work itself,undergoing a transformation.

Illustration


121/179

Illustration Adjunction

metal figure of horse is welded on the metal hood

of a car.

Mixture

rice belonging to different owners are mixedtogether.

Specification

wood belonging to another is used by a sculptorand is transformed into a wooden statue.

ADJUNCTION MIXTURE

1 Inclusion or engraftment 1 Commixtion mixture of


122/179

1. Inclusion or engraftment 1. Commixtionmixture of

solid things belonging to

different owners.

2. Soldidura or solderingfusion of metals

2.1 ferruminacionboth principal &

accessory of same metal

2.2 plumbaturaobjects are of different

kinds of metal

2. Confusionmixture of

liquid things belonging to

different owners.

3. Escrituraa person writes on paper

belonging to another.

4. Pinturaa person paints on canvass

belonging to another.

5. Tejidowhen threads belonging to

different owners are used to make textile.

Principal/ Accessory


123/179

p / y

Principal that to which the other has been united as an

ornament, or for its use or perfection. (Art. 467)

Accessory that which has been added to another object as

an ornament, of for the objects use or perfection.

Test


124/179

First, determine which is the principal and the

accessory using Art. 467. (Rule of Importance orPurpose)

If unsuccessful, apply the following: The Principal is the one which has greater value

If both of equal value, the Principal is the one with greatervolume

Special Rules Paintings, canvass is the accessory

Sculpture, metal or stone is the accessory

Writings or printed matter, paper or parchment is theaccessory

Engraving or lithographs, the stone or metal plate is theaccessory

Application of Rules on AdjunctionFIRST DETERMINE WHICH IS THE PRINCIPAL AND WHICH IS THE ACCESSORY


125/179

Accessory owner in Good Faith Accessory owner in BF

Owner ofPrincipal in

Good Faith

Art. 466

Owner of the Principalacquires the accessory, but he must

pay the owner of the Accessory its

value.

Art. 470 - The owner ofthe Accessory loses

what is incorporated

and must pay the

owner of the Principal,

damages.

Owner of

Principal in

Bad Faith

Art. 470the owner of the

Accessory may:

1. Compel the owner of the

Principal to pay the value of

accessory; or2. Insist on separation of the

objects even if principal is

damaged.

3. Damages must be paid in either

option.

Apply 466both are

considered in good

faith.

Application of Rules on Mixture


126/179

ppOwner 2 in Good

Faith

Owner 2 in Bad

FaithOwner 1 in Good

Faith

Each owner shares

in proportion to the

value of the part

which belongs tohim. (Art. 472)

Owner 2 loses the

thing belonging to

him AND must pay

damages. (Art. 472)

Owner 1 in Bad

Faith

Owner 1 loses the

thing belonging to

him AND must pay

damages. (Art. 472)

Both are considered

in good faith and

each owner shares

in proportion to the

value of the part

which belongs to

him. (Art. 472)

Application of Rules on SpecificationOwner of Materials in Good Faith Owner of Materials


127/179

in Bad Faith

User of

Materialsin Good

Faith

The user becomes the owner of the final

product but must pay the owner of the

materials their value.

Exception: If the material is more

precious than the product, the owner of

the material may (a) appropriate the

product but must pay the value of the

labor employed; or (b) demand

indemnity for the material.

The user may: (a)

appropriate the newthing without

paying the value of

the material; or (b)

demand that the

owner of the

materials pay himthe value of his

labor. Plus damages

in either case.

User of

Materialsin Bad

Faith

Owner of the material has the option to: (a)

appropriate the work without paying the user; or(b) demand the value of the materials. Plus

damages in both cases.

Note: If the value of the product, for scientific or

artistic reasons, is considerably more than the

material option (a) is not allowed.

Both are considered

in good faith.

Adjunction/ Mixture/ Specification


128/179

j / / p

Adjunction Mixture SpecificationEnd-Product Composed of

2 things

Composed of

2 things

One thing

whose form

is changed

Nature of

Component

Parts

Component

parts

preserve

their nature

The things

mixed may or

may not

retain their

nature

Component

parts retain

their nature

Principle

Applied

Accessory

follows the

principal

Co-

ownership

results

Accessory

follows the

principal


129/179

ACTION TO QUIET TITLE

Arts. 476481

Cloud On Title


130/179

A cloud on title is a semblance of title, either legalor equitable, or a claim or a right in real property,appearing in some legal form but which is, in fact,invalid or which would be inequitable to enforce.

(Ballantine Law Dictionary, p. 226) A statement claiming an equitable interest in

certain land, and signed only by claimant doesnot, although recorded in the register of deeds,constitute a cloud on title of the owner.

(Leeds vs. Wheeler, 157 Mass. 7, 31 N.E. 709)

Cloud On Title


131/179

Cloud Must Be Substantial such as to cause a reasonable fear that it may at

some time be asserted against the owner injuriously.

Oral Assertion of Right not created by mere verbal or parol assertion of

ownership.

Apprehended or Threatened Cloud

can be resorted to even with respect to a threatened

cloud

Requisites for Existence of Cloud


132/179

q

There is an instrument, record, claim,encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently

valid or effective.

Such instrument, etc. is, in truth and in fact,invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, or

it has been extinguished or terminated, or has

been barred by extinctive prescription.

Such instrument, etc. may be prejudicialto said

title.

Examples of Cloud On Title


133/179

p

A fictitious contract of sale; A sale of an agent without written authority or

after expiration of his authority;

A forged contract; A contract of sale or donation which has

become in-operative because of non-performance by the vendee/ donee of a

condition precedent;

A voidable contract.

Nature of Action


134/179

What is the nature of actions to quiet title? Actions to quiet title are suits quasi-in-rem

What is meant by suits quasi-in-rem?

They are actions against persons with respect tothe res wherein the judgment does not extend

beyond the property in controversy.

They are conclusive only between the parties

(Portic vs. Cristobal, 456 SCRA 577)

Extinguishment of Right


135/179

The title to property may be quieted withrespect to any instrument which has becomefunctus oficio by reason of facts which can beshown only by extrinsic evidence.

Title and liens which have lost their force or failedto become operative because the persons entitledthereto failed to enforce them have beencancelled as clouds.

Mortgages which are unenforceable by reason ofthe expiration of the period of limitations.

Prescription of Action


136/179

When Plaintiff is in Possession the action does not prescribe (Aznar Bros. Realty

Co., vs. Aying, 458 SCRA 496)

When Plaintiff is not in Possession 10 yrs for ordinary prescription/ 30 yrs for

extraordinary prescription.

Requirements


137/179

What are the requirements to maintain anaction to quiet title?

legal or equitable title or interest

Does title mean an OCT/TCT? no title referred to is the legal right over the

property

Obligation of the Plaintiff


138/179

Art. 479the plaintiff must return to thedefendant all benefits he may have received

from the latter, or reimburse him for expenses

that may have redounded to his benefit. Thus, in the cancellation of a recorded contract of

sale of real estate, as a cloud upon vendors title,

the vendor is required to return to the vendee all

amounts paid to the former by virtue of thecontract, less any damages suffered by the vendor.


139/179

CO-OWNERSHIP

Definition


140/179

It is a form of trust and every co-owner is atrustee for others. (Castrillo vs. CA, G.R. No. L-18046, March 31, 1964) Thus, as a general rule,no one of the co-owners may acquire exclusive

ownership of the common property throughprescription, for possession by one trustee aloneis not deemed adverse to the rest.

A form of ownership which exists whenever an

undivided thing or right belongs to differentpersons.


141/179

Requisites for Co-Ownership to Exist


142/179

1. Plurality of owners; More than one owner of one single property.

2. The object of ownership is an undivided

thing or right; There is no partition of the property.

3. Each co-owners right is limited to his idealshare.

There is no specific portion allotted to the co-owner.

Undivided Defined


143/179

It is not undivided if the shares are alreadypre-determined/ identified even if not

technically identified.


144/179

Rights of Co-Owners


145/179

As to Benefits and Charges They share in the benefits and charges in

proportion to their respective interest.

In the absence of contrary evidence, share ispresumed equal (Art. 485)

Rights of Co-Owners


146/179

Right To Use PropertyOwned in Common

Must be for the purpose for which the co-

ownership is intended. In such a way as not to injure the interest of

the co-ownership.

In such a way as not to prevent the other co-

owners from using it according to their rights.

Purpose of Co-Ownership


147/179

How to determine purpose Agreement of the parties

Ordinary use of the thing owned in common

Previous particular use of the thing owned incommon

Mere tolerance, in the absence of any agreement,

does not establish purpose.

Manner Of Use


148/179

Cannot be used for a different purpose thanthat intended

Use of apartment house owned in common as

dwelling Cannot use the property in a destructive way

Rights of Co-Owners


149/179

Ejectment Anyone of the co-owners may bring an action for

ejectment

Basis Suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all.

Effects

A person authorized to file an action by one co-ownerdoes not require the authority of the others.

But all co-owners must be named as party to the suit.

Rights of Co-Owners


150/179

Expenses Right to compel co-owners to contribute to

expenses for preservation of the thing and

taxes Only necessary expenses (Art. 546) are covered

Exception

Co-owner may renounce so much of his share asmay be equivalent to his share in the expenses.

Acts Relating To Property Owned in

Common


151/179

Common

Acts of Preservation

Acts of Administration

Acts of Alteration


152/179


153/179

Acts of Alteration


154/179

Definition Change in the property owned in common involving:

Change in the essence of the property (conversion of a car toa funeral car)

Change in the use of the property (van is used as astationary diner)

Any transformation which prejudices the condition orsubstance of the property (conversion of residential lot to apiggery)

Any act of strict ownership Sale or mortgage of entire property

Lease of property for more than 1 year and same isregistered.

Acts or Decisions Affecting Co-Owned Property

Consent Required Liability for Cost


155/179

Acts of

Preservation

Mere notice if

practicable. (Art. 489)

With or without notice, all co-

owners are liable. (Art. 489)subject to their respective

interest. (Art. 485)

* Any of the co-owners may

exempt himself thru

renunciation (Art. 488)Acts of

Administration

Majority of the co-

owners is required.

(Art. 492)

* Majority = 51% or

more of financialinterest

Each co-owner is liable to the

extent of their respective


Acts of

Alteration

All of the co-owners

must give their consent.

(Art. 491)

Each co-owner is liable to the

extent of their respective


Rights of Co-Owner Under Art. 493


156/179

Art. 493 He shall have full-ownership of his part, i.e. his

undivided interest or share in the common property;

He shall have full ownership of the fruits and benefits

pertaining thereto;

He may alienate, assign, or mortgage his ideal interest

independently of the other co-owners;

He may substitute another person in the enjoyment ofhis part, except when personal rights are involved.

Sale of Co-Owned Property


157/179

Effect of Sale of Entire Property Co-Owned

Sanchez vs. CA, 404 SCRA 540

5 out of 6 co-owners sold their rights over aparcel of land

Non-selling co-owner refused to vacate the landsold

Can the buyer take-over the land and demolish

the house of non-selling co-owner? No. There should be a partition to determine the

portion belonging to f the non-selling co-owner.

Vagilidad vs. Vagilidad, 507 SCRA


158/179

1931 - Zolio died. He is owner of parcel of land Lot1253 with an area of 4,280 sq. m

Zolio left 3 childrenLORETO, EFREN, and PRESCILA

May 12, 1986LORETO sold to Gabino V, a portion oflot 1253 (Lot 1235-B) measuring 1,604 sq m

July 31, 1987Extra Judicial Settlement by LORETO,EFREN, and PRESCILA adjudicating entire lot 1253 toLoreto.

Sept 21, 1988 - Gabino V paid real estate tax

Dec. 7, 1989Gabino sold to Wilfredo V Dec. 7, 1989LORETO sold lot to Wilfredo V


159/179

Right of Redemption


160/179

Art. 1620 A co-owner of a thing may exercise the right of

redemption in case the shares of all the other co-

owners or of any of them, are sold to a third person. If

the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, theredemptioner shall pay only a reasonable one.

Should two or more co-owners desire to exercise the

right of redemption, they may only do so in

proportion to the share they may respectively have inthe thing owned in common. (1522a)

Purpose of Right of Redemption


161/179

Purpose of Right Given Co-Owner The purpose of the law in establishing the right of

legal redemption between co-owners is to reduce the

number of the participants until the community is

done away with (Viola v. Tecson, 49 Phil. 808).

Effect of Redemption by Co-Owner

Redemption by a co-owner within the period

prescribed by law inures to the benefit of all the otherco-owners. (Mariano vs. CA, G.R. No. 101522 May 28,

1993)

Personal Rights


162/179

A co-owner may substitute another in theenjoyment of his undivided interest EXCEPT:

When personal rights are involved

A right that cannot be transferred because it affects thepersonal relations of the co-owners with one another.

Example: House inherited by children and used by them

as dwelling.

Termination of Co-Ownership


163/179

Consolidation in one co-owner of all the interestsof the other co-owners.

Destruction or loss of the property co-owned.

Acquisitive prescription by a third party or one

co-owner who repudiates the co-ownership. By partition, either judicial or extra-judicial.

By the termination of the period agreed upon orimposed by the donor or testator.

Sale of the co-owners of the thing and thedistribution of the proceeds.

Partition


164/179

General Rule: A co-owner may demand partition of thething owned in common. (Art. 494)

Exception: when co-owners agree not to partition for a period not

exceeding 10 years.

when the donor/testator prohibits partition for a periodnot exceeding 20 years.

When partition is prohibited by law.

When partition will render the thing unserviceable (Art.495)

When another co-owner has possessed the property asexclusive owner and for a period sufficient to acquire it byprescription.

Rights of Creditors


165/179

Art. 497. The creditors or assignees of the co-owners may take part in the division of the thingowned in common and object to its beingeffected without their concurrence. But they

cannot impugn any partition already executed,unless there has been fraud, or in case it wasmade notwithstanding a formal oppositionpresented to prevent it, without prejudice to the

right of the debtor or assignor to maintain itsvalidity. (403)

Art. 497Creditors Included


166/179

All creditors are included, whether secured orprivileged, and those of any category under

title of alienation, exchange, donation or

assignment. Includes an assignee to whom there has been

no delivery of the interest assigned to him and

has only a personal right against the assignor.

Indivisible Object


167/179

Art. 498. Whenever the thing is essentiallyindivisible and the co-owners cannot agree that itbe allotted to one of them who shall indemnifythe others, it shall be sold and its proceedsdistributed. (404) Despite the fact that a thing cannot be partitioned if

it will become unserviceable (Art. 495), still, co-ownership can be terminated by adjudication to oneof the co-owners or the selling of the thing.

Lien on Co-Owned Property


168/179

Art. 499. The partition of a thing owned incommon shall not prejudice third persons,

who shall retain the rights of mortgage,

servitude or any other real rights belonging tothem before the division was made. Personal

rights pertaining to third persons against the

co-ownership shall also remain in force,

notwithstanding the partition. (405)

Art. 499 Interpreted


169/179

Third persons are those who did not participatein the partition.

A and B are co-owners of 28 lots. A sold to X hisshare in 2 of the lots with right to repurchase.

Thereafter A and B partitioned all the 28 lots suchthat 2 of the lots sold to X were granted to A.What is the right of X with respect to the 2 lots?

He is the owner of an undivided one-half of the 2lots in question. X is a third person within themeaning of Art. 499.

Accounting


170/179

Art. 500. Upon partition, there shall be amutual accounting for benefits received and

reimbursements for expenses made. Likewise,

each co-owner shall pay for damages causedby reason of his negligence or fraud. (n)

Liability


171/179

Art. 501. Every co-owner shall, after partition,be liable for defects of title and quality of the

portion assigned to each of the other co-

owners. (n)

Cases


172/179

Cruz vs. CA, G.R. No. 122904, April 15, 2005 Quimpo vs. Vda. De Beltran, G.R. No. 160956,

February 13, 2008

Castrillo vs. CA, G.R. No. L-18046, March 31, 1964

Dela Cruz vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-27759 April 17,1970

Lavadia vs. Cosme, 72 Phil 196

Pardell vs. Bartolome, 23 Phil 450 Arcelona vs. CA, 280 SCRA 20

Cruz vs. CA, G.R. No. 122904, April 15, 2005 Documents Involved?

Deed of Partial Partition

MOA t h th d f th l


173/179

MOA to share the proceeds of the sale

Based on the provisions of the MOA was co-ownership continued? No, co-ownership is terminated upon judicial or extra-judicial

partition of the properties owned in common. Partition, in general, isthe separation, division and assignment of a thing held in commonamong those to whom it may belong. Every act which is intended toput an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees isdeemed to be a partition, although it should purport to be a sale, anexchange, a compromise, or any other transaction.

What were considered by the Supreme Court as indication that thewas indeed a partition despite the subsequent execution of theMOA. The statement in the Deed of Partial Partition ending the state of co-

ownership; The identification of the mass of shares and the distribution of a

particular part to each of the co-owners.


174/179

Castrillo vs. CA, G.R. No. L-18046, March 31, 1964

Can a co-owner acquire the property held in


175/179

common by PRESCRIPTION?

No, as a general rule, no one of them may acquire

exclusive ownership of the common property

through prescription, for possession by one

trustee alone is not deemed adverse to the rest.


176/179

POSSESSION

Possession versus Ownership


177/179

Ownership Possession

Ownership exists when a thing pertaining

to one person is completely subjected to

his will in a manner not prohibited by law

and consistent with the rights of others.

On the other hand, possession is defined

as the holding of a thing or the enjoyment

of a right. Literally, to possess means to

actually and physically occupy a thing

with or without right.

Types of Possession


178/179

Possession may be had in one of two ways:possession in the concept of an owner and

possession of a holder.

"A possessor in the concept of an owner may be

the owner himself or one who claims to be so."

On the other hand, "one who possesses as a

mere holder acknowledges in another a superior

right which he believes to be ownership, whetherhis belief be right or wrong.

Garcia vs. CA - G.R. No. 133140,

August 10, 1999


179/179